International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Tue, Dec 31, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 21, Issue 7 (July 2023)
IJRM 2023, 21(7): 551-556 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Baradaran Bagheri R, Bazrafkan M, Sabour A, Ataei M, Badehnoosh B, Mashak B, et al . The comparison of pregnancy outcomes in fresh and frozen embryo transfer: A cross-sectional study. IJRM 2023; 21 (7) :551-556
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2493-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2493-en.html
Ramesh Baradaran Bagheri * 
1, Mahshid Bazrafkan2 , Abbas Sabour3 , Mina Ataei4 , Bita Badehnoosh5 , Banafsheh Mashak6 , Bahareh Khakifirooz7 , Ramin Moghaddam8
1, Mahshid Bazrafkan2 , Abbas Sabour3 , Mina Ataei4 , Bita Badehnoosh5 , Banafsheh Mashak6 , Bahareh Khakifirooz7 , Ramin Moghaddam8
1- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran. Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. , dr.rameshbb@gmail.com
2- Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
3- Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
4- Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
5- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dietary Supplements and Probiotics Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
6- School of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
7- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kamali Hospital, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
8- International Academy of Health Sciences Informatics (IAHSI), Geneva, Switzerland.
2- Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
3- Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
4- Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
5- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dietary Supplements and Probiotics Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
6- School of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
7- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kamali Hospital, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
8- International Academy of Health Sciences Informatics (IAHSI), Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract: (698 Views)
Background: The benefits of frozen embryo transfer (FET) vs. fresh embryo transfer for in vitro fertilization (IVF) have been discussed in previous studies.
Objective: To determine and compare the pregnancy outcomes following FET and frozen embryos transfer in women who underwent assisted reproductive techniques.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 233 women candidates for IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection who referred to the Kamali Training Medical Center, Karaj, Iran during 2019-2020 were evaluated in 2 groups of fresh (n = 127) and frozen (n = 106) embryo transfers. The rates of pregnancy outcomes including chemical and clinical pregnancy, live birth, preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, still birth, and pregnancy loss were compared between groups in 3 age subgroups (< 25, 25-35, and 35-40 yr old).
Results: No significant difference in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were observed between groups in women aged < 25 yr. Chemical and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher in the FET group compared to fresh group in 25-35-yr-old women (p = 0.01, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively). In 35-40-yr-old women, no significant differences were observed in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, but live birth rate was found to be significantly higher in the FET group (p = 0.02). The pregnancy loss was lower in the FET group (p = 0.038).
Conclusion: In conclusion, the FET method in women aged 25-35 yr significantly increases the chance of successful IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection.
Objective: To determine and compare the pregnancy outcomes following FET and frozen embryos transfer in women who underwent assisted reproductive techniques.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 233 women candidates for IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection who referred to the Kamali Training Medical Center, Karaj, Iran during 2019-2020 were evaluated in 2 groups of fresh (n = 127) and frozen (n = 106) embryo transfers. The rates of pregnancy outcomes including chemical and clinical pregnancy, live birth, preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, still birth, and pregnancy loss were compared between groups in 3 age subgroups (< 25, 25-35, and 35-40 yr old).
Results: No significant difference in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were observed between groups in women aged < 25 yr. Chemical and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher in the FET group compared to fresh group in 25-35-yr-old women (p = 0.01, p = 0.03, and p = 0.01, respectively). In 35-40-yr-old women, no significant differences were observed in terms of chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, but live birth rate was found to be significantly higher in the FET group (p = 0.02). The pregnancy loss was lower in the FET group (p = 0.038).
Conclusion: In conclusion, the FET method in women aged 25-35 yr significantly increases the chance of successful IVF/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection.
Keywords: Assisted reproductive techniques, In vitro fertilization, Embryo transfer, Cryopreservation, Outcome assessment.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Fertility & Infertility
References
1. Chang J-Ch, Yi Y-Ch, Shen P-Sh, Guu H-F, Chen Y-F, Kung H-F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy: A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 60: 125-131. [DOI:10.1016/j.tjog.2020.11.019] [PMID]
2. Bell JL, Hardy P, Greenland M, Juszczak E, Cole Ch, Maheshwari A, et al. E-Freeze: A randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: A statistical analysis plan. Trials 2020; 21: 596. [DOI:10.1186/s13063-020-04441-9] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Maheshwari A, Pandey Sh, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update 2018; 24: 35-58. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmx031] [PMID]
4. Da Silva ShG, da Silveira MF, Bertoldi AD, Domingues MR, da Silva Dos Santos I. Maternal and child-health outcomes in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology (ART): A prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20: 106. [DOI:10.1186/s12884-020-2755-z] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi Sh, Oskouian L. Retraction note to: Can fresh embryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30: 1245. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-013-0084-0] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Aflatoonian A, Karimzadrh Maybodi MA, Aflatoonian N, Tabibnejad N, Amir-Arjmand MH, Soleimani M, et al. Perinatal outcome in fresh versus frozen embryo transfer in ART cycles. Int J Reprod BioMed 2016; 14: 167-172. [DOI:10.29252/ijrm.14.3.167] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Sola I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 156-162. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.003] [PMID]
8. Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y, et al. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. New Engl J Med 2018; 378: 126-136. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1705334] [PMID]
9. Zech J, Brandao A, Zech M, Lugger K, Neururer S, Ulmer H, et al. Elective frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in women at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Reprod Biol 2018; 18: 46-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.repbio.2017.12.004] [PMID]
10. Shin JJ, Jeong Y, Nho E, Jee BC. Clinical outcomes of frozen embryo transfer cycles after freeze-all policy to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2018; 61: 497-504. [DOI:10.5468/ogs.2018.61.4.497] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Wu JL, Keller P, Kanchwala M, Xing C, Babayev SN, Carr BR, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols alter endometrial histomorphology and gene expression profiles. Reprod Sci 2020; 27: 895-904. [DOI:10.1007/s43032-019-00093-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Sha T, Yin X, Cheng W, Massey IY. Pregnancy-related complications and perinatal outcomes resulting from transfer of cryopreserved versus fresh embryos in vitro fertilization: A meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 330-342. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.019] [PMID]
13. Severino AI, Póvoa AM. Frozen embryo transfer and preeclampsia risk. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021; 50: 102167. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102167] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
